Did the DLC and Hillary give "order" to Reid/Pelosi to Cut Loose the Dem Activists?

[KoKo]

I've been muddling over this since it happened. Trying to understand "WHY" the Dem Senate and Dem House Leadership would allow the Censure of a "Free Speech Ad" pointing out that Bush had another Corrupt General he could send out to do his Bidding and the Dems would fall down and rollover and do ANOTHER APOLOGIA!

But...from what I see here on DU and out there it seems Hillary is the Nominee...the polls (even though her pollster has ties into the leading pollsters) but the Polls and the M$M are BEHIND HILLARY/BILL for another run to save his legacy.

SO...if the Democratic Party is "Totally Backing Hillary" (the Primaries are Front Loaded in Favor of Her}, and the other Candidates running..i.e. Edwards, Obama, Biden, Dodd are ALL PART of the Dem Establishment to go for the Status Quo..THEN!

Doesn't it make "Perfect Sense" that Hillary and Bill would want the Code Pink and Move On.org CROWD to be THROWN UNDER THE BUS?

After all..."Hillary/Bill Redux" ...doesn't NEED "Activists" like fallen Idol, Howard Dean had. Hillary/Bill have the BIG MONEY from the "Powers that BE" that will allow them to work with the Bushies and Saudi's and whomever Robert Rubin or other GURU's that supported them in their FIRST RUN...who want to rehabilitate themselves with Clinton REDUX will allow them to do...

DO WE NEED CHANGE or A "RE-RUN?" :shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Of course they did

And yes we do.

[Vincardog]

2. WE need to elect the candidate that represents US. IMO not HRC

[rodeodance]

3. WHY are you bringing Hill Clinton into this?

[Kelly Rupert]

4. Probably not. Not everything done is specifically intended to screw you. n/t

[DURHAM D]

5. Is this a serious post????? n/t

[KoKo]

7. I only POST serious stuff...because...I'm a humorless person....

I am what I am...but I think alot about this...and I'm active in my local Dem Party...so...it is what it is...:shrug:

[William769]

9. Humorless, and without a clue.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

35. I posted this under a thread you were responsible for locking...so maybe you didn’t see it.

This picture you’re posting looks so phony.

Look at it. ...Each supporter is holding a pole with two or three signs on it, and it looks as if the "crowd" is only two deep. ...The photo looks like pure propaganda.

[EFerrari]

39. So, did you organize that or was it your supervisor? n/t

[DURHAM D]

11. Ok KoKo -

primaries front loaded for Hillary - good grief.

If anything they would appear front loaded for John Edwards. Iowa - JE has been campaigning there for 7 years - came in second in 2004. South Carolina - JE was born in South Carolina and won that primary in 2004. New Hampshire - JE has been campaigning there for 7 years also. Nevada - don't know anything about Nevada. Maybe Nevada is where the conspiracy was concocted.

[KoKo]

21. I told you....I've been in a slump thinking about this 24/7...and it's what I could come up with...

after agonizing hours of thinking...I WANT TO KNOW WHY DEMS CAVED and THREW US UNDER A BUS...(Activists, that is). YOU might not have been working against Bush since 2000 Selection ...so you might not have my personal angst over this. :-(

[DURHAM D]

29. I have been working against Repubs since Nixon.

I was devastated when the ERA went down to defeat as good Americans bought into the righties drivel about bathrooms and the draft. When Reagan won in 1980 I knew then that the crazies in charge of the Repub party (who started in the 60s) had taken over the country. When Bush was declared winner in 2000 I was not nearly as upset (as I had been in 1980) because I had already been following the demise of our Democracy for decades. But I kept working and kept waiting for Americans to wake up and get upset about what their government was doing to them. When one is older it gets really hard to keep on trucking when you know that younger people -just ten years younger - just didn't think it mattered. But for the record, even though I was disappointed I still spent major amounts of time and money working for Dems in the past 40 years. Example - during Bill's first run I took off more than two months from work to volunteer for him.

And now, following the process here on the DU makes me REALLY crazy when I see right wing talking points finding their way here to what has become the graveyard for (or breaths new life into) right wing talking points. And these rightie talking points are always posted by self-identified progressives. I have come to dislike that word. To me they are just naive or angry and easily played individuals who see things in absolutes (black and white) instead of analyzing complex issues and forces (gray). Political and policy gains are always gray. They will always be gray. If you don't get use to that it will kill you.

The Dems have not "thrown anyone under the bus and they have not caved" but God knows that is what George Bush, Karl Rove and their minions want you to believe. They have played you and worked you over until you might not be able to make a decent and good judgment, especially if you think in blacks and whites.

All of the Dems running for the presidency are good people. None of them are corporate owned as is so often posted here (boy does that make Karl's heart sing) and the DLC is not the enemy. They are on the same side of good as you are - they just believe that progress is made in a different and incremental way.

We are all on the same train - but some people want the train to go faster or by a different route but we are all trying to get to the same place. Be patient with others and kind to yourself.

[EFerrari]

40. Whatever you're smoking, I want some.

Please make public a list of Clinton and Obama's corporate supporters so we can all see how progressive they are.

The same place, my granny.

[DURHAM D]

41. I wasn't talking to you - butt out.

[KoKo]

51. Thanks for sharing...but...

you assume, it seems to me, that many Du'ers here that you disagree with have not worked for Dems in the past 40 years. On a Message Board like this it's often hard to know the age of folks or their experience from short posts on a thread.

I have much your same experience with the Democratic Party and when the DLC was organized with Bill and Hillary being key players at those Renaissance New Year's Dem Strategy meetings in Hilton Head, SC...I was ALL FOR IT! I felt the Dem Party needed a new strategy that might bring Business Groups onboard and broaden our image which had been so long caught up in important Social Issues where we had made progress that Repugs today would never have allowed...but that we were starting to lose our edge as Japan started to make inroads into our Auto and Technology businesses. Where i would differ with you is on NAFTA (agreed to with consensus between Republicans & Dems..but enacted by Clinton) and then the Privatization and Deregulation of SEC and Telecommunications Consolidation that were not solely Clinton's personal fault but that he was willing to go along with given that he was hounded by the RW throughout his Presidency making it hard to know what he would have stood up against and what he was totally in favor of.

Who knows what Clinton stood for given the attacks against him and his own personal behavior in the second term?

We disagree on the issues i mentioned above. But we are both Democrats... Those of us who want a revision of NAFT, Re-Regulation of our Banking Industry and a break up of Monopolies like the Telecoms and many other business that are now conglomerations due to loose SEC Regulations and Merger and Aquisitions that have cost jobs by sending them off shore allowing the top four or five in Management to reap huge windfalls in Salaries and Stock Options, plus bonus.

There is a gap in the Democratic Party between the group who sees what I and other activists do and what you seem to feel the DLC wishes to have as an accomodation with Supply Side, Free Trade Republicans.

I could go on...but I'm sure you've read enough here to understand how our members of our party are split on policy and goals. :shrug: The DLC was forward thinking for it's time...but it got out of control and aligned itself too closely with lobbyists and Think Tanks. Many of us have lived with what we see as failures of the strategy, and we feel it's time to move the party back to FDR "New Deal" policies where the workers and concentration on our infrastructure providing jobs HERE is more important than what the DLC is happy to live with.

Peace!

[DURHAM D]

54. You have no idea where you would agree or disagree with me. n/t

:hi:

[Emit]

52. "They are on the same side of good as you are..."?

Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement, which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more right-wing orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council. He recently served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a committee chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain designed to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the Social Democrats USA on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SDUSA letter urged Bush to commit to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." He writes frequently on political and public policy matters, especially the "Politics of Ideas" column in Blueprint, the DLC's magazine. Notably, he is one of the co-authors of Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.

-snip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

~snip~
A core member of a neoconservative-like vanguard within the Democratic Party establishment, Marshall has been instrumental in creating organizations that have worked to move the party to the right on everything from foreign to economic policies. With Al From, in 1985 Marshall cofounded the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), an important bastion of center-right Democrats that was once chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT). In 1989, Marshall founded the PPI, a think tank that is affiliated with the DLC. Marshall and From were both staffers for Rep. Gillis Long (D-LA), who was the chairman of the House Democratic Party Caucus in the early 1980s. Marshall served as Long's speechwriter and policy analyst and was also senior editor of the 1984 House Democratic Caucus policy blueprint, “Renewing America's Promise.”

Marshall helped establish the DLC in the wake of Walter Mondale's landslide defeat. The DLC has aimed to create a “New Democrat” movement to shift the party toward the center-right on domestic, economic, and foreign policy issues. Part of the DLC's success can be attributed to the agenda-setting capacities of the Progressive Policy Institute, which was often referred to as “Bill Clinton's idea mill.” The PPI was responsible for many of the Clinton administration's initiatives, including the national service agency AmeriCorps.

Marshall is also editor of Building the Bridge: 10 Big Ideas to Transform America (Roman & Littlefield, 1997) and co-editor of Mandate for Change (Berkley Books, 1992), PPI's best-selling policy blueprint for Clinton's first term. Marshall is also editor-at-large of Blueprint, the DLC's magazine of politics and policy.

~snip~

Marshall was one of 15 analysts who co-wrote the PPI's October 2003 foreign policy blueprint, “Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.” Using language that closely mirrors that of the neoconservative-led Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the PPI hailed the “tough-minded internationalism” of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which in its founding statement warned of grave present dangers confronting America, the PPI strategy declared that, “Today America is threatened once again” and is in need of assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. The authors' observation that, “like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades,” echoes both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. As the “Progressive Internationalism” authors explain, the PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq “because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as to his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of UN Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law.”

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

[MethuenProgressive]

6. The black helicopters are circling koko's nest....

the Plot thickens... :tinfoilhat:

[KoKo]

8. Did you ever think the "Black Helicopters" are circling YOURS, also?

:shrug: You might want to watch your sky...because if they "COME FOR ME...then "YOU" are NOT FAR BEHIND!" :D

[Totally Committed]

10. Here's a Blog from The Rockridge Inst. That Addresses That Question And More:

The Trouble with the DLC
Created by glenn_at_rockridge (Rockridge Institute staff member) on Monday, August 13, 2007

Glenn W. Smith examines how a strategy pursued for decades by advocates of "centrism" has suppressed appeals to progressive values.

Why are Harold Ford and others from the more paternalistic and condescending quarters of the Democratic Party so keen on discrediting the rising progressive movement? What have been the consequences of their obsession with "the middle"? Most importantly, how have the Tory Democrats managed to bury the expression of deep progressive values, and what should the progressive movement do about it?

For three decades, advocates of "centrism" have used their money to monopolize the Democratic message and leave the progressive base out in the cold, not spoken to. Since its founding in 1985, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has been leading this effort. How did they pull this off? Before we get into that, let's call them what they are. "Centrist" implies conciliation, moderation, compromise. It reinforces the mistaken idea that our political life falls along a neat, linear scale from left to right. That metaphor makes the center a pretty good and safe place to be. And that it certainly is not.

The plutocratic Democrats should be referred to not as centrists, but as industrial authoritarians. Their movement was born after the Nixon re-election in 1972. They blamed that landslide on Democratic Party rules changes that audaciously sought to include Americans formerly excluded from the back rooms of power. They fronted for older corporate interests – oil and gas, finance, insurance. The are really 19th-Century paternalists who would save us from ourselves by keeping us far from the plantation's Big House.



These industrial authoritarians figured out how to dominate Democratic messaging. When DLC chairman Harold Ford lost his cool in his Meet the Press encounter with Markos Moulitsas on Sunday, it was clear just how determined they are to continue their domination.

Most of the messages delivered to voters were delivered in the course of elections, not between elections. It took a good deal of money. They had money. So their movement aimed at influencing those messages, making sure no alternative visions or values were discussed. Hence, the decline in the national and state Democratic parties, and any semblance of a progressive infrastructure. Their monopoly on message was achieved at the very same time the Right was building a message machine – think tanks, radio shows, magazines, local grassroots networks – that was all about delivering message and influencing the opinion environment before election seasons ever arrived.

Their campaign model intentionally inverted the logical plan, in which you would maximize your base vote and get just enough votes from outside the base to win. The centrists wanted to win with just enough base voters and the largest possible number of votes from outside the base.

With the centrist strategy, the base got a little mail and a few GOTV phone calls, the "swing voters" got messaged.

The development of so-called "coordinated campaigns" grew out of and advanced this strategy. Coordinated campaigns were pioneered by shrewd strategists in the South. Using efficiency as an excuse, the strategists developed coordinated efforts in which candidates for statewide office would pool resources to pay for base voter programs. These programs were usually light on message. It was all "get-out-the-vote" and very little "we stand with you for these values." Aware that white voters in the region were bolting the Democrats in the wake of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, the plutocrats wanted to reassure white voters that the Democrats remained loyal to their interests. The bulk of campaign money – television ads for instance – were targeted to more affluent, white audiences.

It's not difficult to see the consequences of this strategy. Progressive base voters, especially in African-American, Latino, and other disenfranchised communities, were abandoned when it came to Democrats voicing their values. Democrats could appeal to voters in the so-called middle with technocratic policies, promises of competence, and wonkish mumbo jumbo that either: 1) avoided values altogether; 2) Or, appealed outright to the authoritarian, "strict father" side of white suburban voters. Crime is a great example. The industrial authoritarians promised super-heroic crime-fighting sprees that would even embarrass Republicans. Forget the root causes of crime, like inescapable poverty, illness, crumbling schools, the disappearance of hope.

Another consequence was the meek response to GOP voter suppression. These Democrats seldom challenged the Right's voter intimidation and suppression efforts, including the parade of police that prowled polling places in minority areas, phone banks into black precincts that gave incorrect polling locations or threatened arrest for those who might vote in the wrong place. Oh, there was the famous felon-purge of the voting rolls, used by Karl Rove in Texas in 1982. It had to be withdrawn after a non-felon, very white candidate turned up on the list.

Why so little concern for the progressive base? A growing progressive base was viewed as a threat to the industrial authoritarians for the same reason it threatened the GOP. Also, fears of being painted by Republicans as the party of Civil Rights made the industrial authoritarians exaggerate their distance from the true heart of their party.

As time went on, of course, their strategy became a self-fulfilling prophecy. It got harder and harder to boost turnout among minorities. Who could blame such voters? No one was listening to them, no one was speaking to them. If you want to have some fun, get a member of the Democratic consultant class to honestly tell you how many African American polls or focus groups they have conducted relative to their opinion research among the so-called "swing voters."

At the Rockridge Institute we look for better ways of expressing progressive values, but we also analyze various reasons for the dominance of conservative values in the political sphere. Our work is not partisan, but the partisan structures that effect expression of core democratic values must be examined. There is no doubt that a critical reason is that the industrial authoritarians used their election-cycle monopoly of message to erase messages that spring from recognition of our social responsibility for one another, for the maintenance of an empowering government that protects while allowing every citizen a chance at flourishing. There was no egalitarian messaging from Democrats because those in charge of the messaging were not egalitarians.

The rise of the progressive movement in the early years of the 21st Century challenges this monopoly. The movement is listening to progressives of all kinds and colors, and it's driving new messages of hope between and right through election cycles. MoveOn, Huffington Post, DailyKos, new think tanks like Rockridge, growing local and state progressive organizations, all of them influence the opinion environment outside the old monopolized vehicles.

And a funny thing is happening. The core values of progressives are appealing to Americans of all kinds. It turns out that many of those so-called swing voters share these core values. They were longing to hear them expressed just as those formerly identified as the core progressive base were.

Hence the DLC's vicious attempts to discredit the movement. And that's what they want. They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly. If they don't, they may face the creation of truly universal health care, for instance. And then what in the world will their friends in the insurance industry do? Why, they won't have the money to keep the industrial authoritarians in power.

http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2007/08/13/the-trouble-with-the-dlc


TC

[arendt]

42. Thank you for posting this great link. In-lining the graph really is the best way to read it.

Regards,

arendt

[Skinner]

12. Uh, didn't Hillary Clinton vote against censure?

:shrug:

[cali]

15. never, ever throw facts into a good conspiracy theory.

Or logic. Or common sense. You'll deflate it like a souffle in a cold kitchen.

[jpgray]

16. That just makes her Orwellian scheme more devious. Pull the money, and the rabbit hole unravels

:crazy:

[KoKo]

22. Skinner...in the Dem debate she was clear that she said: "I voted for the Boxer Amendment" as her \

excuse. When Russert dug a little more...she repeated she voted for "Boxer Amendment" because she felt attack ads are not what Dems should be voting on ...(paraphrase)

Maybe you watched it yourself and saw where she kept deferring to how she voted for "Boxer Amendment" but wouldn't answer the question that Russert posed.

I will dig the transcript out if you don't believe me because you didn't catch the whole thing......:shrug:

[KoKo]

23. Here's an update....

25 Senate Democrats Support "Betray Us", Including Hillary

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:LJD8LqXxIPkJ:www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/013457.php+Hillary+supports+Boxer+Amendment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=firefox-a

The Senate passed the Jon Cornyn amendment condemning the MoveOn.org ad that called General David Petraeus a liar and potential traitor, 72-25. All 25 Senators who voted in support of these smears against an American military commander that they unanimously promoted to four stars came from the Democratic Party. It includes two declared presidential candidates and the top leadership of the Senate Democratic Caucus.

Those who voted to support MoveOn's smear:

NAYs ---25

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

It's a particularly sad commentary on the Democratic Party that they cannot bring themselves to support the very commander they sent to lead American troops in battle by a unanimous vote. It's not a case of a few fringe politicians like Bernie Sanders or Barbara Boxer, either. The Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and his chief deputy, Dick Durbin, refused to condemn the smear on Petraeus' honor. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd, both of whom want to become Commander in Chief over the military, chose to endorse MoveOn's smear campaign against a man who has dedicated his life to defending this nation and serving presidents in a nonpartisan manner.

MoveOn has the right to free speech. Congress has the responsibility to defend the honor of the man they unanimously endorsed for the difficult task of bringing security to Iraq. Almost half of the Democratic caucus would rather participate in a smear campaign against the commander than stand up to MoveOn. It's a pathetic, embarrassing, and ultimately revealing moment.

UPDATE: Mitt Romney's response sums it up:

"Hillary Clinton had a choice. She could stand with our troop commander in Iraq, or she could stand with the libelous left wing of her party. She chose the latter. The idea that she would be a credible commander-in-chief of our armed forces requires the willing suspension of disbelief."

[Matariki]

24. There are a lot of sources for which Senators voted 'no'. So why post this right wing crap?

[KoKo]

27. OFGS...Google it yourself and see all the sources for this!

I was trying to find a quick thing for Skinner and this one was accurate as i saw it and I didn't parse the site but knew it wasn't "Politico," "Newsmax" or "Free Repuglic!" GACK!

[arendt]

43. In the same, careful, parsed, triangulated, poll-tested way she does everything. n/t

[Me.]

13. These Days

I never say never to anything.

[ShortnFiery]

14. Yes, the "corporations first" DLC despise anyone who is NOT a part of the Investor Classes.

Those who don't have an extra $300,000 + of chump change invested in the Stock Market's Military Industrial Complex Corporations, IMO, can go f**k themselves if it was up to the DLC.

Us "little people" (American Wage Workers) don't count worth squat to the political royalty within our illustrious DLC. :grr:

If you doubt me - feel free to go to their web site and check out the position papers.

P.S. HRC is one of the DLC's leadership "inner circle." :(

[madfloridian]

17. The party does not want "the left" around anymore.

Their definitions may differ, but having dissenting voices makes it harder for them to go on to the Next War. The New War.

I don't know names, but I know we are not very welcome.

[arendt]

44. Almost 5 years ago, I compared our situation to "Tories and Whigs". Today's left is...

now being demoted to where the "Labor Party" was in the time of Queen Victoria:
to non-existence and to the jails and transports to Australia.

Republican Tories & Democratic Whigs (posted December 11, 2002)
Posted by arendt in Congress
Mon Mar 20th 2006, 07:53 PM
Republican Tories & Democratic Whigs
by arendt (December 11, 2002)

The debate about the future direction of the Democratic
Party (move left or move right) refuses to recognize a
very large and disturbing fact. Over the last twenty years,
big money has totally reconstructed our two political
parties. Today, only money talks; not the voters.

There are only two sources of big and ideologically
acceptable money in America today: big business
money and hard right ideological money. In the
past, people hoped that the fight between social
reactionaries and economic reactionaries would
allow the old Democratic Party to withstand the
old Republican Party. That didn't happen.

What is emerging is an echo of the old British
governmental coalitions: Tories and Whigs.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/arendt/53

Its the businessmen vs the royalists, and who cares how many workers get
trampled underfoot. You can't afford a PR firm or a lobbyist? You don't exist.

The message from the corporate media and the two major parties to the
progressive activists is "shut up and go away". The GOP has always hated us;
and the DLC dems (I absolutely refuse to call them "centrists") have decided
they can win by Sister Soldja-ing us.

Maybe the way we are being treated subconsciously reminded Koko of what
Bill Clinton did to Sister S., and from this flowed her concept that maybe,
just maybe, Reid and Pelosi (who no one in the country knows and who
are very new in their seats of power) might just be getting cues from somewhere.
And you can bet it aint from Howard Dean and the DLC.

arendt

[OzarkDem]

18. Bill would never approve of that

don't know about Hillary. If she's taking his advice, she wouldn't.

Bill knows it was the Dem base who continued to support him through all the faux scandals and witch hunts he tolerated from the Reeps during his 2 terms. He knew no matter how bad things got, he could turn to the liberal, traditional base of the Dem party for support and affirmation. He knew they would turn out for a rally or event to validate his support among average voters. He knew he could rely on that same base of Dems in Congress to help keep his agenda moving through Congress.

If Hillary learned from Bill, she knows the same thing will happen to her if elected - an endless parade of smears and attacks. The average voter isn't nearly as conservative as they were during Bill's term and there's less pressure to cave to that agenda to get support. She should know that she will get support from the base + mainstream voters and that's all she needs.

[The Magistrate]

20. And She Knows This, Too, Ma'am

That the base of the Democratic Party is something different than the people who imagine she is interchangeable with a Republican....

[KoKo]

26. Then how will she acknowlege the Activist Grass Roots who got organized

with Howard Dean and then worked for Kerry to get elected? All those who have spend countless hours showing how our Voting has been corrupted from Selection 2000 and forward...and who knows what happened before?

What about ALL the GRASSROOTS/NETROOTS have EXPOSED in the LIES ABOUT IRAQ INVASION, Questions about 9/11 that have NEVER BEEN ANSWERED FULLY/BCCI/TORTURE/AFGHANISTAN/PRIVATIZATION OF OUR MILITARY/CIA/FBI and that FARCE of HOMELAND SECURITY who Couldn't keep ANYONE SAFE it's so Overloaded with Corporate Influence, Money Grubbing and Special Interests making big bucks off all the "privatization" and contract "outletting." I haven't even listed the HALF OF THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES!!!!!!

[OzarkDem]

28. That's encouraging

Frankly, I haven't been following the primaries that closely thus far. Not ready to decide yet, but I have the distinct impression the positions she's taking on many issues are not the same as Bill's. Hopefully that's just the way she's running and not the way she'll govern if elected.

[Emit]

31. I'm not convinced that the base of the Democratic Party is something different than the people who

imagine Hillary is interchangeable with a Republican....

How can you be so sure?

[The Magistrate]

36. The Numbers Are Pretty Clear, Ma'am

Her favorable rating among Democrats runs north of eighty percent, consistently. What is outnumbered four or five to one is not the base, and not the dominant faction either.

"God is on the side of the biggest battalion."

[Emit]

45. Shit! I didn't know the numbers were that high.

Who are they polling, I wonder?

[arendt]

46. I love how we now have "polls" based on TV appearances, instead of primaries. n/t

[arendt]

47. "God is on the side of the biggest battalion." That's real left wing idealism. n/t

[The Magistrate]

48. Idealism Is Not My Strong Suit, Sir

Worse than hard liquor....

[arendt]

49. Honestly spoken. Me, I'm a hopeless romantic. But I like to drink. n/t

[KoKo]

53. "God is on the side of the 'biggest battalion?"

You can't mean that! Who has the biggest battalian these days and thinks God is on his side? Bush and his Army of God bringing Freedom and Democracy to the Middle East? Haven't we had enough of that? :eyes:

[KoKo]

25. I cut my teeth on Joe Conason/Murray Waas over on Salon Mag...in the early Defend Bill Days

I argued with Relatives and friends I had, at the time, about how RW Conspiracy and Richard Mellon-Scaife were after BILL and HILLARY because the BUSH/Reagan Crowd were devastated that Clinton managed to TAKE IT AWAY FROM POPPY!

I defended the Clintons to the point that no one wanted to listen to me...because what he did with Monica overshadowed EVERYTHING WITH THEM...and they thought I was CRAZY for defending him!

But...you need to know...I NEVER DEFENDED NAFTA...and that he came IN and SUPPORTED that POS Legislation was the first thing I look to NOW ...thinking about how the "Promise" of the Clinton Administration" failed Democrats. Clinton Compromised and Triangulated and caved and the more the Monica thing came to light the more he could be blackmailed. I defended Hillary...I fought for Bill even thinking he was SET UP and that all the "womenizing" was just overblown.

I can't fight for him anymore.... The legacy of a two-term Clinton gave us a two-term Bush who is a CRIMINAL...and probably the MOST CRIMINAL P-RESIDENT ever to OCCUPY THE WHITE HOUSE (the People's House!)

So..I was innocent over Clinton ...thought he'd work for GOOD and US Average Americans... I got snookered. Don't wan't to do it again...

[OzarkDem]

30. Me, too

But Bill got a lot done. He accomplished a great deal in his policies and improved the country in many, many ways, not to mention fixing the economy.

NAFTA was something he went along with as an experiment in improving the economy in less developed countries. Were he still president, he would have taken an active role in working to fix it instead of letting it destroy the US economy.

He did tremendous good in the area of education, health care, etc. Its difficult to recall now because Bush and Cheney have worked hard to undo most of what he accomplished.

But I guess there's no guarantee at this point that Hillary would support the Dem base or enact policies as Bill did, but there's hope.

[KoKo]

33. Microsoft Win'95 did more for the Economy than Clinton ever dreamed

would or could have happened. Clintons were hit with Dark Side but the Good Stars smiled on him with the DotCom Bubble...(helped by Alan Greenspan)...so the TRUE TEST of DLC's New Business Economy which aligned itself in many ways with the Supply Side Reaganomics and Rubin...with a dash of Larry Kudlow and GE's Jack Welch...did alot to propel us through the aftermath of Reagan.

I'm looking at things in the "rearview mirror" but having had some years on this earth through quite a few presidents...I feel I can give a perspective as a lifelong Dem...whether you agree or not...I'm just telling what i've seen and experienced. :shrug:

[Peace Patriot]

19. More NAFTA, more outsourcing, more price gouging, more war dollars, more

war, more police state rule ("prison-industrial complex" and the insane, failed "war on drugs"), more welfare for the rich and fuck the poor, more corporate tax breaks, more credit card usury, more attempted destruction of democracy elsewhere in the world (Latin America, for instance), more torture (has she disavowed it? no), more environmental destruction including potential loss of planet earth (50 years to go, according to the World Wildlife Fund, at present levels of pollution and consumption, and that was before the melting of the polar ice caps), more corporate control of our election results with money and with "trade secret" code, more propaganda, more dead Muslims (or anyone who has oil), more domestic spying by the Pentagon and multinational corporations, more corporate monopolistic control of our public airwaves and all news/entertainment media, more privatization of the military and fattening up of paramilitaries--and all this with "unitary executive" powers to imprison without charge, torture at will and the president writing her old laws.

Bush has pioneered the fascist tools that Clintonism didn't have, first time around, to crush revolt (of the kind that occurred in Seattle '99--50,000 ordinary Americans marching against "free trade" and shutting down the WTO; then, they needed a police riot to subdue it--I know; I was there--but now they have many new weapons, including detention without charge, and God knows what else; experimental weapons, etc.). Nor did Bill have a bankrupt federal treasury, a broken economy, broken agencies on every hand, tens of thousands of wounded vets, millions of people slipping into poverty, heavy Bushite borrowing against Social Security and government pension funds, nor any of the pending disasters that Hillary will have, that could well spark mass revolt.

I'm afraid we're in for a rough ride, but I never did figure that we, the people, would have a choice for president. And I did figure it would be Hillary, to consolidate the global corporate predators' enormous gains under Bush. I didn't think, though, that our corporate rulers would be so unsubtle about it.

First priority: Restore transparent vote counting!

This Congress was not legitimately elected. Virtually none of them can prove that they were actually elected. Our votes are 'counted' by private, rightwing, Bushite corporations, using 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code--code so secret that not even our secretaries of state are permitted to review it--with virtually no audit/recount controls. This inherently fraudulent vote 'counting ' system was fast-tracked into place to further the war; it is now going to be used not only for more unjust war--and to get a military Draft--but to cement corporate rule. You wonder how we can have 70% of the American people opposed to the Iraq War and wanting it ended, and a 'Democratic' Congress ESCALATING it, instead, and reflecting the near exact OPPOSITE policies, on nearly every issue, from the overwhelming will of the American people? This is how. If we want reform--if we want our country back--we MUST restore transparent vote counting. It is not the only thing wrong with our election system, but it is the 'coup de gras'--the democracy-killer. It means that they can thwart our will--without detection, and with no appeal--no matter how hard we work, no matter how much money we raise, no matter how much time we volunteer, to elect good people.

Josef Stalin is supposed to have said it: "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who COUNT the votes decide everything." That's what we're looking at. Corporate Tyranny: 'trade secret' vote counting.

Most hopeful venue to change it: State/local jurisdictions, where ordinary people still have some influence, and where the no-brainer of vote counting that everyone can see and understand is more obvious and persuasive, because it is simple common sense (--something we are not going to see in Washington DC for some time to come).

[illinoisprogressive]

32. Billary control the dem establishment. And no one has the guts to stand up to them

[KoKo]

34. I will NEVER call Hillary Clinton that name...(Billary) which is a limbaugh name for her!

She doesn't deserve that derogatory name...

If you came from somewhere else and have just 'seen the Dem light' then good for you...but she isn't "Billary." :-(

[ToeBot]

37. Conspiracy or not, the establishment Dem's know they don't need the 'Far' left at all this cycle.

With the Republican's fucking up so badly, they figure they are assured victory. So just what is the proper response now they've shown their true colors? Where to redirect that energy? Where, indeed.

[KoKo]

55. If Hillary has the money and the M$M (and many on Wall St.)behind her...she doesn't need

feet on the ground, massive phone banking, poll monitors or any of those things that go along with the average Democrat becoming engaged in the process. She certainly doesn't need the army of activists that rallied around Dean and then turned to support Kerry because our Party urged us to. She just needs Indies and Party faithful to show up. The thought being the RW DEMS who turn out in droves will be so disheartened with the Repug slate they will sit this one out. There's a sense of "entitlement" that's disturbing and a sense of complacency that might follow allowing a SURPRISE for us with another Presidential election. How many times do Dems have to be burned before they get that they've got to build their base and not count on folks coming out for them.

Plus...there's that matter of faulty election machines with both State and National elections officials that are still in the pockets of the Republicans and hand chosen by Republican DINO's that hasn't been taken care of ...even though we were PROMISED after 2004 and the Conyers "Basement Hearings" that it would be on the top of their agenda if they regained power.

[EFerrari]

38. Sure. They think we have no memory. n/t

[Emit]

50. They have concerns about narrow dogmatism...

~snip~

Marshall is the president of the DLC's Progressive Policy Institute and owns the distinction of being the first public figure to use the term "body count" in a positive sense with regard to the Iraq war ("Coalition forces still face daily attacks but the body count tilts massively in their favor"). He wasted no time in giving me the party line: "What we're seeing is an ideological purge," he said cheerily. "It's national effort by the left to get rid of somebody they've decided to demonize . . . we have concerns about narrow dogmatism. . ."

We went back and forth for a while. I noted that his conception of "narrow dogmatists" included the readers of Daily Kos, a website with something like 440,000 visitors a day; I also noted that recent Gallup polls showed that fully 91 percent of Democrats supported a withdrawal of some kind from Iraq.

"So these hundreds of thousands of Democrats who are against the war are narrow dogmatists," I said, "and. . . how many people are there in your office? Ten? Twenty? Thirty?"

"Well, it'd probably be in the thirty zone," sighed Marshall.

I asked Marshall if there was a publicly available list of donors to the DLC.

"Uh, I don't know," he said. "I'd have to refer you to the press office for that. They can help you there . . ." (Note: a DLC spokeswoman would later tell me the DLC has a policy of "no public disclosure," although she did say the group is funded in half by corporate donations, in half by individuals).

"So let me get this straight," I said. "We have thirty corporate-funded spokesmen telling hundreds of thousands of actual voters that they're narrow dogmatists?"

He paused and sighed, clearly exasperated. "Look," he said. "Everybody in politics draws money from the same basic sources. It's the same pool of companies and wealthy individuals . . ."

~snip~

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11034127/the_low_post_why_the_democrats_are_still_doomed/2

[KoKo]

56. Thanks for the link...that's a great article...says alot about how DLC operate...

and kind of goes with what I was thinking in my OP....maybe some confirmation of my gut feeling about why Senate and House would go so far to slam us into the ground. Dems who would censure free speech are not the kind of Dems that most of us thought we would be affiliated with for so long.